*
RESTRICTED
To:
Director of Commerce and Industry, Hong Kong. From: Counsellor (Hong Kong Affairs), Geneva.
Memorandum No. 71
File No. CVA/10/8/1
My memorandum No. 66 of 28 April.
Date:
6 May 1969
UNCTAD
23
69
Special Committee on Preferences
Second Session - 28 April to 2 May, 1969
The Special Committee held its Second Session from 28 April 2 May. It had little to discuss and it is a measure of the infinite capacity for UNCTAD oratory and cumbersome procedures to expand to fill the time available that it managed to last out the whole week and even to go on until 10.30 p.m. on the Friday.
2.
The two main items on the Agenda were
(1) to consider "progress made" in the elaboration of a
generalised, non-discriminatory scheme of preferences in favour of the developing countries and
(2) to "reach agreement" on the mechanics for handling
#1 detailed intensive consultations" with the developing as agreed at the First Session in December, 1968.
It was clear, however, from the progress (or lack of it) made in the OECD since that date (see my memorandum under reference) that there was little progress to report and that it was too early to start considering in detail the mechanics for the handling of future consultations with the 1DCs. This was because a number of otential preference giving countries, including particularly the United States, had not yet tabled in OCD the lists that were called for by 1 March. Without these lists it was impossible to start the process of confrontation and adjustment of the lists within OECD and it was therefore impossible for the Group B countries to say anything very meaningful in the Special Committee. This also meant that no documentation was available with which to confront the developing countries which made it meaningless to contemplate the establishment of most of the working groups envisaged in the UNCTAD Secretariat document TD/B/AC 5/11 (enclosed with my memorandum under reference)
Progress Report
•
3. The draft Group B statement prepared in Paris was worked on further and the agreed version was delivered by Reed (l'orway). This was, as expected, very unsatisfactory to the developing countries in that it made clear that (due to American exigencies) Group B were unable to agree unanimously to a reaffirmation of commitment to the principles, as well as the timetable, of RERVED INtion 21(II) of New Delhi. There was also no collective
REGISTRY No.51
13 MAY 1969
HKK6/12
RESTRICTED
/reaffirmation
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.